History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wotzka v. Minndakota Limited Partnership
831 N.W.2d 722
N.D.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • Wotzka, a hotel guest, slipped in the Radisson Hotel shower and sued for a dangerous condition.
  • Plaintiff claimed absence of bathmat, non-skid strip, or shower-level handrail contributed to the slip.
  • Radisson moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to furnish safety devices or warn of open dangers.
  • Trial court granted summary judgment, holding no duty to warn and no breach despite potential duties.
  • Court reviews summary-judgment standard de novo, focusing on whether there are genuine issues of material fact; premises-liability duties under North Dakota law apply.
  • Court reverses and remands, holding there are genuine issues about whether the hotel should have anticipated harm and acted reasonably.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Duty to maintain reasonably safe premises in shower Wotzka argues hotel should anticipate harm and act safely. Radisson argues no duty to add safety devices. Question of fact; duty reasonably may exist.
Open and obvious danger effect on duty to warn Even if obvious, hotel may owe duty to warn or take precautions. Obvious dangers negate duty to warn. No duty to warn given open and obvious risk.
Whether hotel anticipated harm and failed to act Hotel should have anticipated slip risk and taken protective steps. No anticipation of harm; no breach evidenced. Issue of fact; summary judgment improper.

Key Cases Cited

  • Botner v. Bismarck Parks and Rec. Dist., 2010 ND 95 (North Dakota (2010)) (negligence generally not suitable for summary judgment; questions of fact exist)
  • Groleau v. Bjornson Oil Co., 2004 ND 55 (North Dakota (2004)) (duty depends on whether danger is known/obvious or owner should anticipate harm)
  • Saltsman v. Sharp, 2011 ND 172 (North Dakota (2011)) (summary judgment improper when negligence issues are in dispute)
  • Makeeff v. City of Bismarck, 2005 ND 60 (North Dakota (2005)) (reasonableness standard for natural accumulations of ice/snow on premises)
  • Fast v. State, 2004 ND 111 (North Dakota (2004)) (landowner must take reasonable steps to prevent injury from known dangers)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Wotzka v. Minndakota Limited Partnership
Court Name: North Dakota Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 19, 2013
Citation: 831 N.W.2d 722
Docket Number: 20120301
Court Abbreviation: N.D.